Why Downtown Laguna is Suffering

I think it was just wonderful for the City to organize the special meeting of the City Council and the Planning Commission May 19th. I’m very excited that attention is being focused on problems with the downtown area and the Downtown Specific Plan is being reexamined. I heard a some great points at this meeting and believe this open and informal process has the potential to yield sound improvements to the planning function. The meeting inspired me to write this letter. Its long length attests to how motivated I am to see improvements made. I would love to see more such meetings in the future. I was especially impressed with the need to provide more parking spaces and the idea to remove additional parking requirements when subdividing large spaces into smaller units. After all, there isn’t an increase in the total square footage of these spaces when they are subdivided. Smaller units would be easier to rent and would better serve the small businesses the City prefers. Other proposals, such as raising the height limits on Forest Avenue buildings to allow second story additions, or changing the Guidelines to allow chain or formulaic businesses, I personally disagree with, but they are creative ideas nonetheless. I’m sure some of you would really like these ideas.

I would have liked to see a lot more participation from residents and downtown property and business owners alike. As far as I know, the meeting was not noticed, or advertised. I found out about it by accident. Nobody else downtown that I talked with had heard of it. I don’t know how the other attendees found out about it. Most of them thought the Planning Commission was doing a great job. I didn’t hear any strong criticisms and those that did criticize were not too specific. I have heard a lot of comments “on the street” that were certainly not voiced at this meeting. I encourage all of you to get involved—to have a say in the future that will affect you.

I’ve given everything I heard at the meeting some thought and now present my thoughts for your consideration. Many of the ideas expressed here were also voiced by others at the meeting or in my many conversations with other people downtown. Some are my very own. Most of the problems I talk about are from my direct observation or experience. My intent is not merely to inform and get my points across, but also to spur debate and encourage input of other ideas. The more people that get involved, the better.

What are the Issues?

As discussed at the meeting, there are several important issues we need to examine. First of all, what are we trying to accomplish with downtown Laguna? Have things changed since we last asked ourselves that question? Do we need to evaluate those changes to see if we need to revise our Guidelines or approach to keep it up-to-date? Have the Guidelines and other procedures been working for us as well as they could? Has anyone been complaining? Should attention be geared more to residents or visitors? If a balance is called for, what is the correct balance? How do we achieve it? We can deny design proposals or CUPs we don’t want, but what can we do about other situations? How do we get owners to spruce up their tired old facades? What can we do about the vacancies? How do we increase tourism, or do we even want to? Perhaps this is as good as it gets, and we should do nothing?

Adding to the complexity is the fact that the two key players, downtown businesses and local residents, are not monolithic groups. Some existing businesses cater mainly to locals and others to tourists or a combination. This includes chain operations that may want to open an outlet in town. Some chain stores cater to tourists, but by far the majority are designed to cater to local residents. Some residents leave Laguna everyday to work and prefer to do shopping and other business outside town and ignore our downtown altogether. Other residents prefer to walk around town and find it convenient to shop and do business there. Some residents seek basic supplies and services. Other, perhaps more affluent, residents seek art works and other items normally considered geared to visitors. Each individual resident and business has their own unique perspective based upon their individual circumstances. Assumptions based upon stereotypes can only be taken so far.

Conflicting Goals

Goals of serving residents versus visitors are often conflicting. While more parking and landscaping and other beautification efforts benefit everyone, decisions as to the types of businesses often benefit one group at the expense of another. Obviously, shoe repair, dry cleaners and professional offices serve the local residents. But they can dilute the appeal to visitors. Unlike Broadway, Ocean Avenue isn’t less popular to tourists because it is not pedestrian friendly. Tourists just don’t find some of the businesses on Ocean to be as interesting. Chain store or other businesses that offer popular low cost items, like Trader Joes or Subway, can be very resident serving. That’s how these operations got so big; they offer what everyone wants. But again, chain operations are not interesting to visitors. Art galleries, gift shops, and other stores offering unique items catering to tourists don’t serve locals as much and contribute to congestion and parking problems for local residents. Seasonal differences also complicate the picture. For example, parking really isn’t a problem most of the year but awful in July and August. A lot of the parking problems in the summer result from beach goers or visitors to the Festival and Pageant, not tourist oriented shops. The shops cater to the many people that would have come anyway. To survive, most businesses must serve tourists during the summer, and also serve residents the rest of the year. Nearly all of our traditionally resident serving type of businesses, like hardware or pharmacy shops carry a disproportionate quantity of gift and souvenir items geared specifically for the tourists.

More Input is Needed

More input from everyone is needed. We don’t just want input from a few vocal individuals. I was very surprised at how few business owners attended the meeting. Actually, I may have been the only one. Remember, businesses are residents too. Have any surveys or polls been taken on these issues recently? Perhaps an Internet site or on-line discussion forum would be a cheap way to solicit and share opinions and to increase participation, especially from the more recent residents that have not yet had the time to get involved with City affairs. Interaction is critical as many people with strong opinions can change their attitudes completely when they hear the logical arguments of others. This process is essential to achieve consensus and move forward with real solutions.

Business Decline is Evident

One thing is clear. The downtown business district is not as healthy as it should be. Excessive and long term vacancies and tired, old, deteriorated buildings are only one sign of the problem. Sales are down overall, much more than what can be blamed on the nationwide recession. The decline was hidden somewhat by the recent bump in international popularity from the MTV show and unprecedented affluence due to the housing bubble. With these gone, the drop in business has been much more severe here than in other areas in So Cal. My two little local shops have suffered drops in sales of over 60% while my shops outside Laguna are down only 20%. Sales here are even lower than the period right after 9/11, or the big fire, or the big flood. Most of my business neighbors report similar results. What is causing the decline in sales? Is it less tourists or is it because locals are no longer shopping downtown? In my case, it is both. How can we reverse this trend? Most cities struggle hard to bring in businesses that draw tourists because tourist dollars are vital to the fiscal health and vitality of their municipalities. Laguna Beach has never had to worry about that because the tourists keep coming every summer just as they always have. Accordingly, I believe the focus has traditionally been on limiting tourist oriented businesses. The City has practically had to “beat them away with sticks.” As I recall, a few years back the Coastal Commission stepped in and insisted that coastal zones belonged to all the public, so the City had to modify their focus to accept that the downtown area serve visitors as well as residents. I’m not sure this change was ever fully taken to heart, but there does exist today a recognition that an appropriate balance between serving local and tourist needs is necessary.

Recent History May Show Us the Future

I think we have to look at the history of Laguna Beach in order to plan for the future. Laguna started out as a tourist destination. That was all there was--tourists and businesses that catered to tourism. Laguna was like a resort island, beautiful but isolated, far from the rest of civilization. It was heavily forested. President Teddy Roosevelt used to come stay in a local hunting lodge to shoot wild deer and boar. Things started picking up in the 1920’s with the introduction of the automobile to the middle class. Laguna wasn’t as hard to get to from Los Angeles with the automobile. Hotels, art galleries, etc., sprang up to cater to the visitors. Drawn by the sheer beauty of the rugged Laguna coastline, many visitors started to build summer cottages here. After WWII, the housing boom that overtook the nation was carried out here too. Perhaps because of the geographic isolation, tourist orientation, and beautiful setting, the culture of the people that settled in Laguna was distinct from the rest of OC. People with more liberal, artistic, and bohemian beliefs congregated here and the town was more open to counterculture lifestyles. This cultural divide encouraged camaraderie among locals and reinforced the feeling that Laguna was truly unique and set apart from the rest of OC. Laguna was also still very geographically isolated. There was just nothing else around for many miles. Residents were dependent on local businesses for all the essential products and services they needed as well as employment for many. Just like other small towns in the country, these businesses formed around the small downtown area, in our case, the intersection of Forest and PCH. Forest Avenue became the city’s “Main Street.” All of the long term residents living here now grew up during that period of time and many wish that small town way of life could be preserved somehow. Some view with distain the tourists that cause the parking problems in summer and the tourist oriented businesses that they feel are to blame for bringing them. But small town life has all but vanished in Southern California with the tremendous growth in population and accompanying development.

One thing is clear. Tourists do not come to downtown Laguna to see an example of what an old time village community from the 60’s was like. Laguna is not a living museum like Colonial Williamsburg where you can see craftsmen making barrels by hand or blacksmiths pounding out door hinges. Tourists are not interested in seeing a little shoe repair shop, or family owned pharmacy, or the tiny produce store that used to be on Forest Avenue. If we try to “preserve” downtown Laguna like that, we are going to end up being more like the Ghost Town exhibit at Knott’s Berry Farm. Yet visitors flock to exciting new places like The Grove, many times more people than downtown Laguna. The Grove is made to look like an olde time main street / village, but the mix of product and service offerings are contemporary. The most popular place there is the Apple electronics store. Still, the stores there are mostly the same chain operations that you can find anywhere. People don’t really go to places like The Grove just for the chain stores. The chain stores are everywhere. They go because of the outdoor strolling and eating experience and the ambiance.

In the last 20 years, the area surrounding Laguna Beach has grown up. Housing tracts and shopping centers have filled up and continue to fill up the areas adjacent our town. Residents of Laguna no longer have to depend on local businesses to supply their needs. It is easy to pop just outside town to obtain anything one might need. Popular big box retailers like Home Depot, Target, and Costco are a short drive away. These businesses have taken over small family owned businesses everywhere else in the country. Now Laguna residents have easy access to them as well. With all the development in the areas around Laguna, many recent residents have moved here as if Laguna was just another suburban housing development. With the growth of large business centers in Irvine and other nearby areas, Laguna has become to many just a housing development in the suburbs. They commute to work just outside Laguna and many find it more convenient to do their shopping where they work. And then there is ordering things off the Internet.

For many residents, the downtown area has simply become irrelevant as a shopping destination. Laguna is no longer an isolated little town that has to have a resident serving downtown. It is nice to have such businesses close by, but not required. Those that do exist don’t even need to be right downtown. Locations on PCH North and South of the downtown area are more convenient for residents and rents are cheaper there anyway. Spaces right downtown on Broadway Avenue are going begging. In terms of shopping accessibility, Laguna is now just another piece of the much larger OC. I’m not saying this is a good thing. I’m saying this is the way it is.

With increased integration with surrounding areas, the affluence of many residents, especially more recent ones, has risen substantially. More affluent residents have a higher demand for art and other unique products formally geared toward tourists. These shops can no longer be considered tourist only businesses.

As a shopping destination, downtown Laguna must compete for resident and visitor attention with all the other shopping destinations in the area--premier world-class centers like South Coast Plaza and Fashion Island. There are also Laguna Hills Mall, Irvine Spectrum, Crystal Cove, and others planned or under construction. It is frankly impossible for our little town to compete with these centers in terms of selection of offerings. Parking is so much easier in the new centers too. During the summer, it can be more convenient and take less time for locals to drive to these places than to try and find parking in downtown Laguna. As oft suggested at the meeting, the best way to encourage residents to visit downtown during the summer would be to provide more parking spaces just outside downtown with more trolley services to them. But this won’t help the losses from the explosive growth in Internet shopping, which is taking business away from brick and mortar shops everywhere. With so many attractive and convenient alternatives available, the concept of a small town type downtown business district geared to supplying all the needs of the local residents is no longer relevant. It’s time has passed. We can’t turn back the clock. We can’t close our borders to keep residents in and the rest of the world out.

Even if we removed all tourist serving businesses from the downtown area and replaced them with resident serving businesses, residents would still not be able to find everything they want. Times have changed. The diversity and variety of goods and services available and expected by contemporary Americans, especially more affluent ones, could not possibly be contained within the tiny geographic area of downtown Laguna. Furthermore, many of the businesses that supply such goods and services simply would not find Laguna Beach to have enough customers and purchasing power to fulfill the minimum requirements of even one of their locations. The small town economies in America have been replaced by the Global Economy.

With all of these factors, it’s fair to ask why downtown Laguna hasn’t already withered away or been forgotten like many other “Olde Town” areas in other cities. As the owner of two businesses in downtown, and based upon many discussions with other business owners, I can tell you that even in the non-summer or off-season months, there has been a gradual decline in shopping by the local residents over the years. Fortunately, this has been somewhat replaced by an increase in shopping by residents from the immediate surrounding areas outside Laguna. With locals increasingly going outside Laguna, why would outsiders drive in to shop? In my case, it is because we carry unique items combined with a high level of individual focused customer service. We don’t sell things you can buy from mass-market retailers. We couldn’t compete with them directly even if we wanted to. We have to provide shoppers something the other places don’t. I believe downtown Laguna must provide something different to compete with other shopping centers. We need more unique stores that get people to come to Laguna just to shop there.

Let me be very clear. I’m not saying, absolutely not implying, that any business already in the downtown area should be encouraged to leave. That would be crazy. I’m saying that the City’s ideas about what we should be trying to push the downtown area to be, or deny new businesses from coming in to preserve, should be looked at and maybe updated. Times have changed. We have to look at the new situation we are in when we ask ourselves “what are we really trying to accomplish and why?”

What does Laguna Have that Other Shopping Destinations Don’t?

Why shop downtown Laguna? I already mentioned one reason, unique and unusual products. Besides the economic necessity to sell things the mass retailers don’t, Laguna has a reputation as an arts colony selling unusual, unique, and creative products. Shopping is not just about buying things you need, it is also the pleasurable act of looking at so many interesting things, trying on clothes, inspecting artworks, examining curios and imagining owning them. Without question, the Art Festival and Pageant of the Masters attract high-class visitors from around the world and generate much, if not most, of the tourism. But locals can only buy so many unique things. What would attract the locals as well as the tourists?

The other critical thing that attracts people to downtown Laguna is the wonderful, outdoor ambiance. Cool mild climate, steep hillsides reaching down to beautiful rocky beaches, an eclectic mix of architectural style geared toward pedestrians, authentic village and arts colony feel. People have always liked to stroll outdoors, to gather in people friendly places to meet, eat, and shop. Indoor malls, the kind that sprang up all over the nation in the 60’s through the 80’s are being torn down and replaced by outdoor centers that also provide fine dining, entertainment, and housing within a reasonable walking distance. This is what the ancient Roman city planners perfected thousands of years ago. This is the exciting future of shopping/business districts. But downtown Laguna has already been providing that type of experience all along! For the last 50 years, if you wanted the outdoor village shopping scene, there were very few places like Laguna where you could find it. But other shopping destinations are rapidly catching up. Outdoor promenades such as Santa Monica’s 3rd Street and new developments like the Spectrum, Strand, Grove, Pacific City, and many others now or will soon offer the “Main Street” outdoor walking scene too. Laguna’s downtown is no longer nearly as unique as it once was. From a pedestrian standpoint, it is often less desirable because it is small, has limited parking with too many noisy, smelly cars speeding through town. Many young people, especially, find downtown Laguna “boring” and “dead.” I’m not saying we should encourage more youth to come here and hang out, but we shouldn’t be discouraging them either. Without youth, a City becomes old and tired. Youth add energy, excitement, and vitality. Our youth are our future.

Chain or Formulaic Businesses

As previously discussed, chain store operations became large because they found a popular formula that everyone wants. They have huge economies of scale, so they can offer their products cheaper and still make a higher profit. The problem with these businesses is that they are everywhere. If they take over Laguna Beach, then we become just another shopping center no different than anywhere else, except we are harder to get to, we don’t have enough parking, and during the winter, there aren’t enough customers to make it economically viable for these stores to exist. Witness the recent closure of several chain stores like Banana Republic and Jamba Juice. How could such a popular business like Jamba Juice not make it in a prime location right next to the beach? Local residents might find these popular businesses resident serving, but visitors are not interested. They come to Laguna for something different. The whole idea of Laguna shopping as seen by the rest of the world is “unique, creative, and artistic.”

The City doesn’t have the legal right to deny entry to a business just because it is a chain operation. The City does have the right to require unique products be offered by new businesses. Chain store operations would find it difficult to meet this requirement because of the standardized nature of their goods and the sheer size of their operations. How can something be unique if you have 1,000 or more stores selling the same thing?

Look and Feel of Storefront Facades

Putting conditions on the CUP to require the physical appearance of the stores to look unique and “village like” has been a requirement of many city planning departments for some time now. This has become so standard place, that practically all brand new shopping centers are making this requirement. Retail buildings and facades must blend in with the local architectural mix and ambiance. Consumers are used to this by now. The old signature look of chain outlets like the “golden arches” of McDonalds are becoming historic curiosities. Laguna not only has a small town look and feel, it has a genuine eclectic mix of architectural styles. Every building looks different. This is something developers like Rick Caruso have tried to copy, but no matter the cost, they just can’t replicate the naturally diverse look. The Grove looks like a new development trying to look like an old, small town main street. In spite of all the millions spent on that project, it just doesn’t look authentic, because it isn’t. But that doesn’t stop the visitors from coming. Our architectural diversity is something we should be preserving, not destroying by forcing individual buildings to change to conform to some idealized concept of what a small art colony / small town village should look like. For example, I feel there are too many sandblasted wood signs in town. Sure, they look good, but when you get too many of them it starts looking like a standardized sign program from a new master planned community. This is Laguna Beach, not a new housing complex in Irvine.

More important than the “look” of the store façade, is the merchandise being sold. Customers aren’t fooled by a “local looking” façade anyway. It is what is sold inside that counts most. Shoppers come to Laguna Beach because they are looking for something different, something unique, not because they just want to stroll up and down the sidewalks admiring the architecture. I know from personal experience that they will gladly shop in tents with sawdust covered dirt floors to find those unique items. In the 70’s I used to make unique jewelry and sell it to shops in the “new” Sawdust Festival. As crude as it was, people came from all around. A store doesn’t have to look like it came out of Santa’s Village before they will go inside. A fancy store front might look nice and be inviting, but it will not get people to buy something if it is not appealing to them.

Unique Shops Offering Unique Items is the Key

The recent decision to allow Tommy Bahama into town indicates that the City may value the look of the facade over the nature of the goods sold. If so, this could set a dangerous precedent of ignoring the unique nature of offerings as long as the building looks like something that belongs in an olde-time village. Anyone can build store facades that look unique. That is the formula used by big-time developer Rick Caruso in his world famous “The Grove” and just opened and more extravagant “Americana at Brand” outdoor shopping centers. While the pedestrian oriented Grove is wildly successful for its eclectic mix of architecture and signage, landscaping, fountains, and outdoor eating, it also has tons of parking and is located in a high density part of Los Angeles, close to several major freeways. Unlike Laguna, it is packed with tourists and locals alike year round. Even then, Caruso’s people told me that he really wants more unique, non-chain types of businesses. They asked me to open a Muse store there for that reason. Unique stores are hard to find. Caruso was forced to bring in outlets from chain operations in other countries that don’t have a presence in the US. Even then, the majority of stores in his centers are the same ones you see at every other mall in the US. Caruso continues to push hard for unique shops offering unique items. We already have it. Laguna Beach has a reputation as an artist colony offering many unique and creative items you can’t buy at other centers. That is the most important thing we need to preserve. That is what people will go out of their way for.

You Can’t Fight Basic Economics

The City of Laguna Beach has the power to prevent undesirable types of businesses from opening up in downtown, but unlike a privately owned shopping center, it has no power to dictate what types of business will open. It can not decide to fix up or beautify older, tired facades. It certainly has no power to force businesses that are not making a profit from leaving. The reason for vacancies is not because rents are too high. Rent prices are dictated by supply and demand. If a landlord can not get desirable tenants to move in at his desired price, he has to lower his price until they accept. Even half the desired rent is better than no rent. In my family’s personal experience, we tried to fill our vacant space with a good tenant offering unique products for two years. There was no lack of offers from a wide variety of unique businesses. Most prospective tenants accepted our asking rental price without hesitation. In fact, rents in downtown Laguna are artificially lower than comparable retail districts even without the beautiful geographic and coastal factors. The problem is, it is very difficult to find a type of business that the City will accept. The City has made it clear that it does not want any more tourist oriented businesses. The overriding explanation for rejecting our many prospective tenants was “local residents do not need this type (or more of this type) of business.” What was really confusing is when we were told we couldn’t to a business selling high-end celebrity antiques. This is an interesting business that would serve residents more than tourists. There are no other businesses like it downtown. But, the Planning Department told us they “didn’t like the style” of furniture depicted in the proposal. Come on! Even if an acceptable business is found, if one or more existing competing business complains, the tenant will often be rejected. Finding a business that is not already in town is practically impossible. I tried to open a shoe store. We used to have four shoe stores, but one went out of business. My shop would have replaced it, bringing the total number of shoe stores back to the old level. But even though I pointed out that our percentage of shoe stores versus other types of businesses was extremely low in comparison to other shopping destinations, the City rejected the proposal. That just doesn’t make sense. Often, the City will approve a business to move in, but it will be such a poor economic fit or have so many conditions put on the CUP that the business will decide not to open or it will go out of business in short order.

Mayor Egly made a comment at the meeting that she makes a point of patronizing local resident serving businesses in downtown Laguna. She, as well as some other long term residents, try to serve the community by giving preference to local businesses. Although admirable, this feeling there is a need to patronize local shops is a prime indication that they are at risk from basic economics. Ultimately, people will spend their dollars on the products or services they want most, at the best value, and at the most convenient location. As I said at the meeting, I can not compete directly with the big chain outlets. They can buy or make their wares in China at a faction of my cost. They have huge advertising budgets and high brand recognition. The only way I can compete is to offer unique products with a higher level of customer service. Instead of appealing to the “mass market,” I have to cater to a small niche market serving tourists and locals alike.

The City planning process must adopt policies that accommodate basic economic factors like these. Ignoring them will ultimately fail. That does not mean we should just give up and let free market forces dictate what happens to the town. It does not mean we encourage chain operations to move in. The City can pick and choose how and which forces we accommodate. We need to recognize these forces and find creative ways to meld with them as much as possible while still focusing on what we are trying to accomplish long-term. [For example, governments of third world counties have found that simply outlawing opium fields doesn’t accomplish anything. But providing financial incentives to switch to other productive crops and finding other economic alternatives for local people does work.] Businesses and property owners must have acceptable alternatives to what the City doesn’t want, or there will be vacancies. If we don’t consider economic realities when planning for this City, then businesses will either violate their CUPs or will gradually fail to meet real customer demands, shoppers will slowly go elsewhere, buildings will gradually fall vacant and stay that way, and the downtown will wither and die.

The City’s Focus Seems to be on Denying Changes it Doesn’t Want

The following is not a condemnation of the Planning Commission or any Commissioner. Nor is it a complete assessment of the Commission, Planning Department, or any other City function. The PC has made some great decisions in the past. They are smart and have come up with some very creative ideas that have made everyone happy. They have encouraged opposing sides of issues to work together to resolve their disputes. Their attention to detail as they slug through confusing and contentious issues late into the night is very admirable. But this article is about things that need to be changed or fixed, so it may come across as negative. Problems noted are general problems. They do not occur all the time and there are always exceptions to the norm. Even when the Commission or Planning Staff act inappropriately, there are often dissenting opinions. On the other hand, listed below are problems which I have personally witnessed in my limited exposure to the planning function. It can not be considered a complete list. Others may have experienced different, or worse problems.

The Design Guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan were intentionally written rather vague and open to interpretation. They Guidelines are intentionally general, non specific. There is a lot of emphasis on aesthetics and generalized concepts like “village” atmosphere. Even if well designed, rigid and specific rules may work most of the time, but sometimes will result in the wrong decision or solution. On the other hand, when the rules are generalized and it is up to a human being to interpret or fill in the specifics in a subjective way, this allows the group applying the rules the flexibility to adjust the rules to specific situations. While this allows for a case-by-case, customized approach to ensure the best decision for each situation, in practice, this has not always been the result here. Instead, the decision process is often too subjective, inconsistent, and arbitrary. The process is too easily influenced by politics and personal feelings and tastes and there is often little in the way of examination of evidence, determining accuracy of facts or following of any systematic or logical methodology. The Planning Commissioners seem to view their role as not just to apply and interpret the Guidelines, allowing changes that do not conflict with them and preventing changes that do. They appear to insist that they, personally, must like the proposed changes. In effect, they become the Guidelines.

The PC sometimes appear to make their subjective decisions, and then “interpret” the Guidelines to justify them after the fact. This has gotten so pervasive, that personal taste, opinion, or feelings of Commissioners can directly conflict with the letter and intent of the Guidelines. They are not above ignoring the Guidelines altogether if it is in the way. They will not hesitate to bend or ignore the Guidelines to approve or deny as they please. On the other hand, if they don’t want to approve an application, and they can cite something in the Guidelines that could be interpreted as even a little bit against the proposal, they will say that their “hands are tied,” they would like to approve it, but the Guidelines prevent it. There is nothing we can do. Also, if it serves their purpose, some things in the Guidelines which were originally listed merely as examples of good things that should be encouraged, are treated as requirements or things that absolutely must not be removed.

Ideally, applicants want some type of clearly written set of rules or guidelines or something that they can study and tailor their projects or CUPs to. They can save time and money not trying to get something that is in conflict with the written rules. Then, when they submit their application, it is a simple matter of getting approval. Instead, for most applicants it is like throwing dice. No one has any idea what the PC will say. Applications that seem to be a slam dunk according to the written Guidelines and/or prior precedent are denied while others, that no one thought had a chance, are surprisingly approved.

Precedents Perhaps in an effort to be more consistent, and to deal with the fact that there is not enough specificity in the Guidelines, the PC has “standardized” their decision process over time for certain circumstances and are often hesitant to break their own precedents. This is contrary to the original “customized approach” intent of the Guidelines. Commissioners have, in effect, created unofficial and unwritten “rules of thumb”. These effectively supplant the Guidelines, but are not published or communicated to the public until they present their application. This only contributes to applicant confusion and unmet expectations on both sides of the process. Commissioners frequently cite examples of what they did with prior applications, as if that somehow makes it right. Doing the wrong thing should not become the right thing or the standard thing just because they did it before and got away with it. If there is nothing in the Guidelines that addresses a particular issue that the PC feels should be or if the Guidelines need to be changed, then that issue should be added to a list of items to be considered at some periodic time when the Guidelines can be modified or updated. Public input must be a part of this process.

Subjective Decisions Can be Influenced by Personal Feelings Applicants complain that approval seems to be based upon what mood particular Commissioners are in at the time, or worse, the personal or political relationship of the applicant to Commissioners or other City Officials. A few owners brag about how “tight” they are with City Officials and how much power they wield because of it. I, personally, had to suffer the indignity of having a Commissioner declare in a public meeting that “the Hall family have always been trouble makers.” Wow, what an outrageous thing for a City Official to say! Professional Staff Planners and appointed Commissioners are supposed to be outside such petty politics. Anyway, I am not a trouble maker. I am merely someone that stands up for my rights and cares enough about this City that I’m willing to challenge and point out problems to affect change for the better, even if it means some people in the City will see me as pain in the neck. If you are going to accept the job of a public official, making public decisions, then you should be willing to listen and adjust to public criticism.

The Commissioners all have a lot of experience with aesthetic issues in the downtown Laguna Beach. They have absorbed a feel for what is appropriate and what is not. This is also part of the problem. In my business, I buy clothing for my customers. Although I have learned to have a natural and automatic “gut feeling” for what is good looking, this is not the same as my own personal taste. I don’t buy what I like, I buy what I think my customers will like. It is very difficult to keep the distinction separate. When I stray from what my professional guidelines say is good and I’m influenced by my personal tastes, I usually see the error of my ways very quickly—when the stuff doesn’t sell. The PC do not have the benefit of that kind of feedback. There is little or nothing to keep them from injecting their own personal tastes or “feelings” into their decision process. The same subjective, “feeling” process is going to be influenced by attitudes toward the applicant too. If the applicant is someone you like, you are just going to “feel” better about approving their proposal. If the applicant is a trouble maker or argumentative, then you will just “feel” better about denying their proposal. That is basic human nature. All humans are this way. That is why there should always be checks and balances imposed upon people making decisions in the public interest. You just can’t give public decision makers too much subjective leeway.

Protocol and Communication I know that protocol must be followed at any public meeting to keep things in order. But I think the Commissioners take it too far sometimes. One thing that can be frustrating about the PC meetings, which is different from the City Council meetings, is that one of the Commissioners might misquote the Guidelines, or make a mistake in fact, or come up with a wacky idea, and the Commission will go with it. Other Commissioners will agree and expand and spend a lot of time on it, finally making decisions based on it, that are completely out of touch with reality. You have to sit there and keep your mouth shut because the public part of the hearing has been closed. You may be asked to come up to answer a specific question, but you better not try to say anything else. If you try to speak up, you run the risk of being asked to leave the meeting or have your proposal denied. At the Council meetings, they are more open to hearing what you might have to say, if is pertinent to the issue at hand.

There is also inconsistency and bias in enforcing protocol. Commissioners can be much more restrictive against members of the public that speak out against something they favor. They will shut speakers down pronto if any of their comments are perceived as even a little bit personal or irrelevant. The factual accuracy of their statements will also be challenged and if they can not prove what they are saying, their statements are rejected as hearsay. Speakers can be interrupted and the flaws in their logic pointed out. Speakers which appear to be repeating the same arguments as a previous speaker are also asked to step down as redundant. All of these things happened at one meeting I attended. Unfortunately, when my identical proposal (which the PC opposed) was presented at the same meeting, a number of speakers were freely allowed to make harsh personal attacks, completely irrelevant and factually incorrect statements, faulty logic, and other derogatory comments. The Commissioners did absolutely nothing to stop them.

Attitude The individual Commissioners are very nice people. But as a group, the PC can sometimes have a “take it or leave it” attitude. Our way or the highway. The PC is not shy about implying or even saying outright that if their ideas are not accepted, they will deny or delay the project. They freely use the power to deny and delay to force or impose the applicant to do what they want, even if it is totally outside the scope of the original project. They have stated openly that they don’t really care if the applicant’s desperately needed building or other improvements are made, or a long-term vacancy is filled, so they don’t feel the need to compromise. It seems like they think their job is to protect the City, not serve the applicants. They are not there to encourage or help something good happen; their job is to prevent bad things from happening--a “gatekeeper” role. The attitude seems to be that downtown Laguna is best preserved as it is, so if something is denied, no problem, it just preserves the status quo. So, if you’re not sure something is good or bad, well, the tendency is to deny. You can’t blame them. It seems like no matter what their decision, no matter how good it is for the greater benefit of the City, someone is always unhappy. If you can’t make everyone happy, it is a small step to not worry about anyone’s happiness. The greater good of the City is the important thing, not catering to what the “people” want. Determining what the greater good really is, that is sometimes the hard part.

Regarding vacancies, the PC has in the past not appeared to have any concern for them or the economic devastation they cause individual property owners. I believe vacant commercial spaces are the worst factor in the overall image of a commercial district. The PC held up a bank’s application to move into a long-term vacant space on Forest Ave for months discussing minor variations of color and style of the facade. Eventually the bank walked away, in disgust and frustration, from their plans to open in Laguna and the financial investment they already made. The particular style of awnings would have only a very small effect on peoples’ perception of downtown Laguna Beach, but long term vacancies have a major impact. Vacancies say “decay,” “unpopular locale,” “decline,” “distress,” and “crime.” This problem has gotten so bad that the City Council has been asking questions. Unfortunately, the only proposed solution I’ve heard so far is to forbid property owners from papering up windows! Next thing perhaps will be to forbid “For Lease” signs? Don’t get me wrong, I think it is a good idea to decorate the windows in a vacant space. That’s what malls do. But the focus should not be on hiding vacancies, it should be on preventing them in the first place and getting the spaces rented out ASAP.

Commissioners seem to feel that they are there to serve the “City” which is apparently the residents primarily, especially long-term residents. They don’t seem to acknowledge that businesses are residents too. Businesses seem to be viewed as money-oriented entities that must be controlled, otherwise, they will readily destroy the City in the interest of profits. The Chamber of Commerce in Laguna seems to have very little influence on the planning process, even though the PC makes profound decisions which impact the business community. If there is any input from the Chamber, I haven’t seen it. In some cities, the PC is made up mostly or completely of Chamber members, or is even a function of the Chamber itself. Not here.

Long standing non-elective membership has reinforced these attitudes as there is little concern for public disapproval of contentious decisions. I’m not saying I would want to replace even one of the Commissioners, but how long have they served in their capacity? Sure, the longer you’ve served, the more experience you have and, therefore, you are the most qualified for the job. But following that logic, Commissioners should never be replaced unless they themselves decide to resign. I used to work for a major public university. Tenured professors could never be fired, so that meant they were free to pursue pure research and teach what they wanted without constraints from the administration or politics. (This is the way Plato designed the judicial class in his Republic and the model for the US Supreme Court.) But tenure also meant these professors were free to bend or break the rules, they didn’t care what people thought of them, and they were not accountable for their actions. Consequently, the most egregious acts were committed by some of these professors, although most of them committed only minor improprieties, if any. The university could only try to cover it up. You must have accountability and freely-expressed public criticism for anyone making decisions in the public interest.

Costs Related to above, the feasibility or cost of project changes desired by Commissioners is usually not considered in their decision process. Commissioners have stated outright that applicant costs for proposals or PC required modifications are of no concern to the Commission—that they do not want to even hear about it. The attitude seems to be, if you don’t want to spend lots of money, don’t make the proposal. It is not our job to save you money. It is our job to ensure the best for the City. When I made my proposal to make minor changes to my windows, to restore them to their original height, the PC saw it as a great segue into expanding the project into a major structural rebuilding of the entire building façade. They said they were sure that the building owner and/or the other tenants would be happy to pay for the work. Well, of course, they were not happy at all. Why would they want to pay for something they don’t need, they don’t think will be an improvement to a building they are already quite happy with, and will only cost them significant loss and inconvenience to construct? The City does not (usually) go around willy-nilly spending money on things they can not afford. Why is it so hard to understand that business and property owners must consider the economic feasibility of things the PC wants them to do? The PC is very generous with business/property owners’ money when it comes to requiring things that they think might, a little, improve the look of downtown. Let’s turn it around. I think it would be a great idea for the City to replace all of the sidewalks in the downtown area with solid brick, real antique bricks like at the corner of Forest and Glenneyre. I don’t care how much it will cost as long as I don’t have to pay for any of it. The workers can be paid overtime to do all the work at night, so they don’t disturb my business. Certainly, everyone must definitely agree that this would represent a wonderful improvement to the downtown area. So, why doesn’t the City do it? Again, the Commission’s attitude about costs shows it is out of touch with applicants’ real life business considerations.

CUP “Creep” The City is already very good at denying approval for what it perceives might be undesirable changes. It is not very good at preventing changes to business operations once approval is granted. CUP “creep” is a problem in downtown. It is definitely a fact that some prospective business owners deliberately say one thing when they apply for a CUP, but do something else a few months after they move in. The creep problem is so prevalent partly because the basic economic pressures, discussed earlier, are pushing up against, and conflict with, the Laguna Beach Guidelines. We need some way to enforce the CUP’s that is effective, yet not overly hostile to business owners. Right now, the Planning Commission seems to only have the power to shut down a business, a weapon too powerful to be effectively used in minor issues, (and too large a risk of expensive and bothersome legal response from the business). The PC’s plate is also always full of new applications, so it doesn’t really have the time for dealing with enforcement hearings, which are much more contentious and time consuming anyway. Consequently, the focus has mainly been on being extra cynical and suspicious of all new CUP applications. Unfortunately, this is not an effective control measure. People that intend to deliberately deceive, are going to do so no matter how hard you question them or what type of documents you ask them to present. This is also counterproductive to encouraging desirable businesses to move in, many who are quite innocent and have the most honest of intentions. The thing to do is get everything down in writing so you have something to check against later. And then you have to check. But then, what are we going to do about it when we find a problem? That is the area that needs work. Perhaps fines? This could be written into new CUP documents.

Going too far and actually proposing design or business ideas. The Commissioners do not limit themselves to merely applying and interpreting the Guidelines. They are not shy about proposing their own design or product ideas, which they give more than justifiable preference to, over and even in direct conflict with the stated intent of applicants’ proposals. A few years back, I presented my proposal for a sign. The PC changed the size, the wording, and the location of the sign and then approved it—all without allowing me any input or comment. I never installed the approved sign because it was worthless to me after their modifications. In a recent application, I proposed to remove a cinderblock wall that was in the way. This did not in anyway conflict with the Guidelines and has been allowed in other buildings all over town. I offered to expose some bricks in other areas as an enticement to get approval. They like bricks. After one year of meetings, in which they kept telling me the wall removal would be fine, at the last minute came up with the idea to build a new brick wall in its place. They made that a condition of approval. My original proposal was to remove the wall. Why on earth would I want replace it with a new one? They also insisted that I consult with an architect. Besides the fact that I already did, but they didn’t believe me, they should not have insisted on the architect, because the City design submittal requirements do not require it. When the architect proposed something they didn’t want, they just ignored him and proposed their own design ideas, which they approved.

As far as I know, none of the Commissioners have extensive retail merchandising or formal architectural design training or experience. I do not believe it should be the PC’s role to design store facades for business owners or make predictions about whether the business will do well or not, or comment on how well the merchandise will sell is, or propose modifications to the applicants’ products or other retail plans. The Guidelines are very specific about what types of things are not allowed, or what types of things should be encouraged (like hand crafted items). I know of cases where the Commissioners were so insistent on imposing their own ideas on prospective business owners (things that were not specifically required by the Guidelines), that even as they were in the process of approving the CUP, or had already approved it, the applicants walked away in disgust. These businesses offered unique and popular items and would have made excellent additions to the downtown area.

The Commission is also not shy about suggesting that applicants throw in more work, better materials, fancier designs, extra landscaping, or other things to sweeten the deal before they hand over an approval. Applicants often offer this as enticement to get approval. For instance, prospective art galleries have offered to donate art to “show what a good citizen the business will be for the community.” Jacks Surfboards allegedly offered a $100,000 donation to one of the City’s favorite charities, keeping the local hospital in business, in exchange for a CUP to move into town. This is common practice in all cities, and there is nothing illegal about it. I, myself, when I sought approval to move my store to the space next door, offered to build a really beautiful new store that the whole City could be proud of. They approved it; I built it; and the City benefited.

I’m certainly not saying that any City Official is taking bribes. The “payoffs” don’t benefit the individuals making the decisions. That would be illegal. But they do accept, and sometimes demand, goodies that they feel benefit the City. Cities must weigh the greater good or benefit to the public. Public parks are commonly built and donated by developers in exchange for approval to build a new housing development. The immensely valuable land that eventually became Crystal Cove State Park was donated by the Irvine Company in exchange for the right to develop all the land inland of it. Cities are always willing to consider accepting something they don’t want or don’t care so much about, if it comes with some other things they like or need. This is POLITICS. But the Commission should not require or demand such payoffs if the applicant is not asking for anything that can be considered negative to the City or in conflict with the Guidelines. If they do, the City is abusing its power in order to extort things they really don’t have a right to expect. For example, in some third world countries, if you are caught speeding, you can conveniently pay the ticket directly to the officer that caught you. This is a technically illegal, but accepted practice. The underpaid or volunteer officers earn their pay that way, much like a waitress earns her pay in tips. But the officer should not expect you to pay him if you didn’t do anything wrong. That is a “shakedown” and is not considered acceptable anywhere. Accepting goodies to sweeten an otherwise questionable or undesirable proposal is a valid power of a City. Demanding lots of goodies when there is otherwise no reason to deny a small application is not.

Time Frames Another technique the Commission appears to use is to delay and drag out the process, (at great cost to some applicants). By doing this and by resisting or making constant changes to the application design, they can wear down the applicant to the point where the Commissioners get whatever they want. The applicant simply gives up or concedes to Commissioners’ otherwise unacceptable modifications merely to “end the aggravation” or salvage something out of an otherwise lost cause. I’m sure that most of the time proposals get dragged out for completely valid reasons. The Commission has a right to be thorough and see sufficient documentation in order to make the best decisions, especially in major and/or controversial proposals. On the other hand, I’ve never seen the Commission go out of their way to move things along, no matter how desperately the applicant needed it. They have said outright that the applicant’s time schedule isn’t their problem. Also, the fact that a proposed project is very small or inconsequential doesn’t guarantee that it will go through the process any faster. Consequently, some applications will simply be abandoned when they don’t seem to be getting anywhere. Some of these would have otherwise been a benefit to the City. How many were never even applied for, because the business or property owner felt it wasn’t worth the time and trouble?

Presentation Inflation In an effort to increase the chances of approval, applicants, and especially architects, try to produce the highest quality, fanciest application documents and drawings possible. As everyone knows, “window dressing” can create a favorable impression. The problem is that big developers and others proposing big budget projects have the wherewithal to produce really fancy stuff. The Commissioners get used to these fancy presentations. Over time, the level of fanciness must increase, that is, you have to produce even more fancy stuff to stand out and look impressive. Eventually, the level of what is standard or expected rises too. It gets to the point where merely submitting what is required by the City looks substandard. Small businesses proposing small projects can not afford to produce the type of fancy documentation and presentations that big businesses can. The small project budget doesn’t allow for it anyway. Accordingly, perfectly adequate proposals that meet every written standard required by the City can be rejected outright. This is not fair to small owners and acts to discourage small, but vital, improvements in the downtown.

In a related issue, the PC has become very powerful. This power should be vested in the (public approved) Guidelines. But, because of its lack of specificity, and the resulting wide latitude and subjective leeway given to Commissioners, the power is shifted to them. A lot of development or business money is riding on some of their decisions. Even if a requested proposal won’t cost that much, critically needed things can be just as important to some applicants. Power begets ingratiation. Over time ingratiation becomes the standard and accepted expectation. Ingratiation reinforces the status quo as actions are praised and flaws or errors are discreetly not mentioned. The few that speak up invite disfavor and are seen as trouble makers, crackpots or gadflies. They are the minority. Their valid criticisms may be ignored accordingly. Self reflection and restraint becomes difficult without outside criticism. From what I have seen, the Commission does actively try to correct itself, but falls short. They don’t catch everything. I have often seen the Commissioners exercise self control. One of them, often Norm Grossman, will say “wait a minute here; we can’t do that.” But self control can only be relied upon so much. There must be outside control. The City Council can be appealed to and they will often reverse PC decisions, but they have sometimes shown hesitancy to do so. Unfortunately, many give up without appealing, falsely assuming they will meet with the same problems with the Council.

Planning Department The Planning Department (Staff), especially its Director, have even more power than the PC in some ways. Staff serve as the gatekeepers for the Commission. They hear verbal descriptions of applicants’ proposals before an application is submitted. If their request is something that Staff don’t feel will be approved by the PC, they may even refuse to accept the application. This is a needed procedure. It informs applicants of PC’s preferences and specific restrictions that would prevent the request from being approved outright. This can save applicants a lot of time and money. However, given that much of what is considered acceptable is not written, but merely the PC’s preference or precedent (discussed above) and there is some inconsistency in PC decisions, this becomes a very subjective area. Staff interject a lot of their own subjective opinion into this process. Staff strongly imply to applicants that their opinions have very strong, if not absolute determination as to the eventual PC decision. Consequently, some projects, projects that would be good for the City and might otherwise be approved by the PC, are never applied for. The perception that is put out there is that you must obtain Staff recommendation for something otherwise it will have no chance of PC approval. In my case, out of all the many times I have applied for something, Staff recommendations and PC decisions were the opposite in every case except the very last one.

Read more in Part II